Mahesh S/O Sudhakar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5087 Bom

WP  6884/15                                   1                       Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 6884/2015
1.    Mahesh S/o Sudhakar Shrungarpawar,
      Age-35 years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
2.    Natthu S/o Baga Kurzekar,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
3.    Pawan S/o Chandan Sonkusare,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
4.    Bhimabai Anandrao Ninawe,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
5.    Vilas Segoji Mungate,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
6.    Purushottam Tukaram Khandait,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
7.    Ahalyabai Mulkalwar,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
8.    Waman Rajaram Selokar,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
9.    Tukaram Balaji Nikule,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
10.   Deoram Namdeo Wanjari,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
11.   Kisan Pandurang Wanjari,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
12.   Rushi Rajiram Chachere,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
13.   Lalitabai Kisan Wanjari,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
14.   Laxman Nanu Dhawale,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.




 ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:46:58 :::
 WP  6884/15                                             2                             Judgment

15.   Ghanshyam Haribhau Dhakate,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
16.   Bhagwan Shrawan Deshmukh,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
17.   Shobha Pawan Sonkusare,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
18.   Kunda Motiram Wanjari,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
19.   Rukhmabai Bhaskar Vaidya,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
20.   Udaybhan Rajaram Kumbhalkar,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
21.   Sangeeta Motiram Wanjari,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
22.   Hiralal Kawadu Deshmukh,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
23.   Raibai Devram Talmale,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
24.   Saraswati Raghoji Wanjari,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.
25.   Yashwant Jageshwar Shrungarpawar,
      Age- years, Occ.-Agriculture,
      R/o Adyal, Tq.Pawani, Distt.Bhandara.                                   PETITIONERS

                                      .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      through its Secretary,
      Irrigation Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.    The Collector, Bhandara.
3.    The Land Acquisition Officer,
      Deputy Collector, in L.Q.L. Case
      No.45/2010-11 Bhandara, the
      Collector Office, Bhandara.
4.    The Executive Engineer,
      Gosikhurd Project Ambadi (Bhandara),
      Tq. And Distt. Bhandara.                                                        RESPONDENTS



 ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017                                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:46:58 :::
 WP  6884/15                                           3                              Judgment

                     Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioners.
     Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
                    Shri S.G. Jagtap, counsel for the respondent no.4.

                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                     A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 27 TH JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek for the quashing and

setting aside of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

on 30.10.2014 and a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in

relation to the land of the petitioners have lapsed in view of the

provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The State Government declared its intention of acquiring the

lands of the petitioners and some others by issuance of the Section 4

notification on 16.06.2011. The last notification under Section 6 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.08.2012. The award was

passed on 30.10.2014. The petitioners have challenged the award by

taking recourse to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act as according

to the petitioners, the award ought to have been passed by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer within a period of two years from the date of

issuance of the Section 6 notification.

WP 6884/15 4 Judgment

4. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioners,

submitted that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the

provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. It is submitted that the last Section

6 notification was issued on 08.08.2012 and the award ought to have

been passed on or before 08.08.2014. It is submitted that the award was

however, passed on 30.10.2014. It is stated that the award was also not

actually passed on 30.10.2014 and a show was made by the respondents

that the award was passed on 30.10.2014 though it was passed much

later. To substantiate the submission that the award was backdated, the

learned counsel for the petitioners took this Court through the award

which refers to the communication issued by the Town Planning

Department to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11.11.2014. It is

stated that if the Town Planning Department had issued a letter to the

Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11.11.2014 and the same is

mentioned in the award, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination

that the award could have been passed on 30.10.2014. It is stated that on

01.12.2014, the land acquisition officer had written to the acquiring

body-V.I.D.C. that the draft award was pending before the Commissioner.

It is stated that the Commissioner had given the approval to the award on

20.11.2014. It is stated that on an application made by the petitioners for

a copy of the roznama on 02.09.2014, the copy of the roznama was

received by the petitioners several months later on 13.03.2015. It is

stated that the roznama was maintained only till 06.05.2014 and, hence

WP 6884/15 5 Judgment

the said roznama does not give a correct picture of the proceedings before

the land acquisition officer pertaining to the acquisition of the land of the

petitioners and others. It is submitted that though in the outward

registered of the Town Planning Department, the entry in regard to the

communication dated 11.11.2014 is maintained at Outward No.32, at the

end of the previous page of the said register fraudulently, entry 28-A is

inserted subsequently. It is stated that there are two outward entries in

respect of the communication issued by the Town Planning Department to

the special land acquisition officer, one at entry no.32 and the other at

entry no.28-A. It is stated that for no other entry, an additional entry 'A'

is shown and entry 28-A is made merely to create a picture that the Town

Planning Department had issued the communication on 26.09.2014 and

not on 11.11.2014. It is submitted that when the Commissioner had

granted approval to the award on 20.11.2014, it cannot be said that the

award could have been passed on 30.10.2014. It is stated that the award

is not passed within two years from the date of issuance of the Section 6

notification and despite the fact that it was not passed within two years,

the said award is backdated, as could be gathered from the aforesaid

facts.

5. Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the V.I.D.C.-acquiring

body, submitted that the acquiring body is not at fault and whenever the

land acquisition officer asked the acquiring body to pay the

WP 6884/15 6 Judgment

compensation, the acquiring body has released the same. It is submitted

that the compensation is paid to the land holders as per the provisions of

the Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. it is submitted that the

V.I.D.C. had offered the compensation to the petitioners under the Act of

2013 but they had refused to accept the same.

6. Shri Thakare, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the State Government, submitted that since there was an

interim stay granted by the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.4274

of 2014, the State Government had by an order dated 18.10.2014

directed that all the land acquisition proceedings would be stayed in view

of the stay. It is submitted that the letter of the Town Planning

Department dated 11.11.2014 was never received by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that the letter of the Special Land

Acquisition Officer dated 26.09.2014 was received by the land acquisition

officer. It is stated that the mention of the communication of the Town

Planning Department dated 11.11.2014 in the award dated 30.10.2014

appears to be an inadvertent mistake. It is submitted that in view of the

decision of the State Government not to proceed further in the land

acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the interim order passed by the

Aurangabad Bench, the award could not be passed within two years from

08.08.2012.

WP 6884/15 7 Judgment

7. It appears on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ

petition and the rejoinder and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the

respondent nos.1 to 4 that though the award was passed much later, a

show is made by the respondent nos.2 and 3 of having passed the award

on 30.10.2014. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the

petition and the rejoinder which are not disputed by any of the

respondents that there is a mention of the issuance of the communication

by the Town Planning Department to the Special Land Acquisition Officer

on 11.11.2014 pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings in the

award. Thee is an outward entry no.32 in regard to the communication

dated 11.11.2014 in the outward register maintained by the Town

Planning Department. This entry shows that indeed a communication

was issued by the Town Planning Department to the Special Land

Acquisition Officer on 11.11.2014. The respondent no.3 has the audacity

to state that they have not received any such communication from the

Town Planning Department and the reference to the said communication

in the award is a clerical mistake. From outward entry no.32, we find

that this communication was issued by the Town Planning Department to

the Special Land Acquisition Officer and from the reference of this

communication in the award, it is apparent that the special land

acquisition officer had received the communication dated 11.11.2014

before passing the award and, hence a reference to that communication is

made in the award. This clearly shows that a show is made by the

WP 6884/15 8 Judgment

respondent nos.2 and 3 that the award was passed on 30.10.2014 when

the award was passed much later. Though the enquiry in the matter

under Section 9 of the Act was conducted by the Deputy Collector, the

District Collector has signed the award. It is clear from a perusal of the

award, the documents annexed to the petition and the rejoinder that the

award is falsely stated to have been passed on 30.10.2014 though it was

passed much later.

Actually, it was not necessary for the respondent nos.2 and 3

to have made the show of passing the award on 30.10.2014 as even if the

award was passed on 30.10.2014, the acquisition proceedings would have

lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act as the last

Section 6 notification was admittedly issued on 08.08.2012 and the

award ought to have been passed on or before 08.08.2014. We do not

find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondent nos.1

to 3 that since there was a stay to the proceedings by the Aurangabad

Bench, the State Government decided not to proceed with the land

acquisition proceedings. We are afraid that Writ Petition No.4274 of

2014 that was pending before the Aurangabad Bench had no relation

with the land acquisition proceedings in this case. The Aurangabad

Bench had merely stayed the effect and operation of the notification

dated 19.03.2014 which pertains to the multiplier. The Aurangabad

Bench had not stayed the proceedings in any land acquisition matters,

much less the land acquisition matter with which we are concerned. If

WP 6884/15 9 Judgment

that is so, the award could not have been passed on 30.10.2014, as the

same would have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the

Act. It is surprising that though the respondent nos.1 to 3 have relied on

the communication of the State Government dated 18.10.2014 that

proceedings in all land acquisition matters should not be continued in

view of the stay granted by the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition

No.4274 of 2014, just within two weeks from the said date, the award is

purportedly passed on 30.10.2014.

We find that several irregularities and illegalities have been

committed while proceeding with the land acquisition case initiated in

pursuance of the Section 4 notification dated 16.06.2011. It appears that

the roznama is maintained only till 06.05.2014 as a copy of the roznama,

that was received by the petitioners on 13.03.2015 and that is placed on

record, shows that the roznama is maintained till 06.05.2014 only. Had

the roznama been maintained till the end, this Court could have gauged

as to when the award was actually passed. It is surprising that the

respondent no.3 has taken a stand that the roznama was never

maintained after 06.05.2014 as the proceedings were in the office of the

Commissioner. Even assuming that the proceedings were in the office of

the Commissioner, if they were received before 30.10.2014, as the award

was purportedly passed on that date, the roznama could have been

maintained after the proceedings were received from the office of the

Commissioner however, the roznama ends on 06.05.2014. We do not

WP 6884/15 10 Judgment

know whether all the subsequent pages of the roznama have been

destroyed with a view to conceal as to what happened in the land

acquisition proceedings after 06.05.2014. We prima-facie find that for the

same communication of the Town Planning Department, different dates

are mentioned, i.e. 26.09.2014 and 11.11.2014 and subsequently,

Outward No.28-A is inserted in the outward register by making a show

that the communication dated 26.09.2014 was issued by the department

to the land acquisition officer. The entry at outward no.32 clearly shows

that a communication pertaining to the pending land acquisition

proceedings was issued by the Town Planning Department to the land

acquisition officer on 11.11.2014. Entry No.1081 in the inward register

in the office of the land acquisition officer shows that the Commissioner

had given approval to the award on 20.11.2014. If the Commissioner had

given approval to the award on 20.11.2014, we cannot fathom as to how

the award could have been signed by the Collector on 30.10.2014. We

prima-facie find that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondent

nos.2 and 3 would be a fraud on the public exchequer. If the award is

liable to be quashed for the aforesaid reasons, i.e. the negligence on the

part of the land acquisition officer to complete the proceedings within two

years, proceedings will have to be freshly initiated after the lapsing of the

said proceedings, under the provisions of Right To Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013. This would unnecessarily cause great financial burden on the

WP 6884/15 11 Judgment

respondent no.4-Acquiring Body. In the circumstances of the case, when

we find that a show was made by the respondent nos.2 and 3 and a

backdated award was passed on 30.10.2014, it would be necessary to

direct the respondent no.1 to conduct an enquiry in the aforesaid matter

against the respondent nos.2 and 3 and the other concerned, and take an

appropriate action against them in accordance with law.

8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

It is hereby declared that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in

view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The respondent no.1 is directed to take appropriate action against the

respondent nos.2 and 3 and all the others concerned, in accordance with

law.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

              JUDGE                                        JUDGE



APTE